If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Second Option Intel Nehalem I expect to be most powerful, but it is too expensive for me. K8 Architecture I think is outdated. So I'm deciding mainly between Core2 and AMD K10.5 architecture, which is VT-d vs. Nested pages decision too.

What is the best option to go? AMD 10.5? Intel Core2? Or Core i7 bcause the advantage si too big? I appreciate every idea. Thanks a lot.

PS: I saw almost every benchmark here on Phoronix, but it usually does not compare main competitors AMD vs. Intel or ATI vs. nVidia. This time, comparison AMD vs. Intel would be useful.

Anandtech has done some comparison between AMD and Intel Server CPUs, including virtualization. The results should be roughly transferable to a desktop CPU of the same architecture/clock speed/number of cores.

Comment

Anandtech has done some comparison between AMD and Intel Server CPUs, including virtualization. The results should be roughly transferable to a desktop CPU of the same architecture/clock speed/number of cores.

I definitely have to disagree with you there...

The types of software that is run on a desktop is a lot different then software for servers. I dont run apache on my desktop, but I do run Nexuiz... They arent exactly comparable loads now are they?

Comment

If anyone is going to make a comparison, I'd make the wish of including the Via Nano in it. And not only compared to each other's virtualization performance, I'm mainly interested in a comparison between their native and virtualized performance.

In AMD platforms the server brands are essentially identical to the workstation and desktop brands. Really the only comparisons that make sense is the loads that you put on them. Examples being AMD's Barcelona is a server processor that is identical to AMD's Deneb Desktop processor. They come off the same line from the same factory and are even cut from the same wafers. The difference is in the binning process. According to quality control standards some are binned a Opterons, some as Phenom X4, Others with one bad die are X3, and still others are binned as Athlon X2. From the worst of the batch to the best of the batch.

So since we know that the CPU's are essentially the same, your trying to say that a server load is indicative of a desktop load, and that simply is not the case. You can look at apache benches and say that this CPU will run apache at this level, and a Phenom X4 should roughly produce the same results. The problem is that we dont run apache on our desktops and so that benchmark has no value to a desktop user. I dont play mysql. I dont edit documents with apache. I dont browse the web with gcc.

Comment

Fortunately, there are many benchmarks that compare Phenoms and Cores in typical usage *and* virtualization.

Phenoms II CPUs are very competitive on both fronts and slightly cheaper. The big question is the rest of the platform (motherboard, video cards etc). AMD tends to have the advantage from a feature/price standpoint, but Linux changes the equation.

Comment

If you want to guarantee that you actually get a cpu that supports virtualization, stick with AMD. These intel crapolas may or may not support virtualization in any particular model number at their whim and getting documentation from them to prove one way or another is quite nearly impossible.

Second Option Intel Nehalem I expect to be most powerful, but it is too expensive for me. K8 Architecture I think is outdated. So I'm deciding mainly between Core2 and AMD K10.5 architecture, which is VT-d vs. Nested pages decision too.

What is the best option to go? AMD 10.5? Intel Core2? Or Core i7 bcause the advantage si too big? I appreciate every idea. Thanks a lot.

PS: I saw almost every benchmark here on Phoronix, but it usually does not compare main competitors AMD vs. Intel or ATI vs. nVidia. This time, comparison AMD vs. Intel would be useful.

Comment

well, my point stands - intel tries to screw users. There are SEVERAL cpus with the EXACT same naming - some of them can do virtualization in hardware, some can't and you can not check that until you have built them into your box.

Screw intel, go amd. The 955 and 966 gives the 920i and qx9770 a run for their money - while still cheaper. Money you can put into quality mainboards and lots of fast ram.